Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,865
TheThinWhiteDuke wrote:Unless you have a genuine ailment, if you're anti mask you're either a selfish idiot conspiracy nutjob thicko or trying too hard to be edgy.
Or all of the above depending how obsessed a person is, on both sides of the argument, with their point of view.
I just wish everyone would get on with their own lives and stop interfering.
TheThinWhiteDuke, Bob Whysman and Brian Dixon like this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
i have notesed that mr outspoken care hasent posted since he started this thread.
Jan Higgins and Bob Whysman like this
Bob Whysman
- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 1,935
Brian Dixon wrote:i have notesed that mr outspoken care hasent posted since he started this thread.
I suspect that he may just be exercising his transactional analysis skills (psychoanalytic theory ) Brian!
It seems to have had the desired effect and produced many of it’s concepts!
Jan Higgins likes this
Do nothing and nothing happens.
Weird Granny Slater
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,061
Brian Dixon wrote:i have notesed that mr outspoken care hasent posted since he started this thread.
I suspect he's disappeared into the trees with Woody.
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,912
Who's right ?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
mrs wrongs boy friend. lol
Guest 2846- Registered: 9 Sep 2018
- Posts: 18
To be fair, Dover has one of the lowest rates in the district. People must be doing something right or perhaps there is so much lorry pollution in the air it kills it off. I have seen loads of non compliance and Dover also seems to have a lot who think its a hoax. All the stats people put out on here about spanish flu and winter deaths fail to take account of one thing. They were not spreading at the same rate as covid 19. If we hadn't locked down in spring so many more would have died. I personally think schools should close.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,912
Where will all this end
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Weird Granny Slater- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,061
Mildred Green wrote:If we hadn't locked down in spring so many more would have died.
Given covid deaths peaked on April 8, meaning that infections must have peaked before 'lockdown' began, I think your claim falls under Woody's description of a 'baseless statement' (although, tbf, he hasn't yet found the courage to clarify what he means by this). Perhaps you'd like to make it less so by producing some evidence. Otherwise someone might assume you're not thinking very well. (No
post hoc ergo propter hoc or 'stands to reason' please.)
Something leads me to believe it has about as much truthfulness as this nugget: '
so much lorry pollution in the air it kills it off'.
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Reginald Barrington
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,254
As infections peaked at the very start of lockdown, is that not an indicator that the sudden drop in social interactions had some part to play in it. When would they have peaked without the lockdown?
ray hutstone likes this
Arte et Marte
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,051
What is the meaning of "covid deaths peaked on April 8" please?
(Not my real name.)
Weird Granny Slater- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,061
It means 8 April was the day on which the highest daily total of covid-associated deaths in England occurred. See:
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-13th-june/
Reginald Barrington wrote:As infections peaked at the very start of lockdown, is that not an indicator that the sudden drop in social interactions had some part to play in it. When would they have peaked without the lockdown?
It suggests that infections peaked
before 'lockdown'. I've read studies suggesting anything between 19 and 28 days between infection and death. House arrest began on 23 March, giving 16 days between 'lockdown' and peak deaths (although that warehouse of epidemiological exactitude, Matt Hancock, tried for a while to claim 'lockdown' began on 16 March, possibly because of innumeracy, but more likely because he's a mendacious incompetent).
Note: when I write 'lockdown' I am, of course, referring to 'lockdown' mk1, not 'lockdown' mk2, the one de Pfeffel claimed not long ago we wouldn't be having.
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,865
I think that we will continue having to have these ill thought out lockdowns as long as the irresponsible young and the older idiots stop thinking they can do just as they like so continue to infect the rest of us.
Guest 1713 likes this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Weird Granny Slater- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,061
Jan Higgins wrote:I think that we will continue having to have these ill thought out lockdowns as long as the irresponsible young and the older idiots stop thinking they can do just as they like so continue to infect the rest of us.
So if deaths decrease it's
the government's doing; if they increase it's
our doing. Foolproof.
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,865
Weird Granny Slater wrote:So if deaths decrease it's
the government's doing; if they increase it's
our doing. Foolproof.
Not at all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,912
I agree with post 54
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Weird Granny Slater- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,061
I agree with posts 9, 14, 22, 26, 30, 31, 36, 37, 45, 50, 53 and 55. Oh, and 58.
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
Reginald Barrington- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,254
Weird Granny Slater wrote:It means 8 April was the day on which the highest daily total of covid-associated deaths in England occurred. See:
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-13th-june/
It suggests that infections peaked
before 'lockdown'. I've read studies suggesting anything between 19 and 28 days between infection and death. House arrest began on 23 March, giving 16 days between 'lockdown' and peak deaths (although that warehouse of epidemiological exactitude, Matt Hancock, tried for a while to claim 'lockdown' began on 16 March, possibly because of innumeracy, but more likely because he's a mendacious incompetent).
Note: when I write 'lockdown' I am, of course, referring to 'lockdown' mk1, not 'lockdown' mk2, the one de Pfeffel claimed not long ago we wouldn't be having.
And the fact that most of us had already started reducing our social interactions and many were calling for the lockdown, might have possibly made a difference to the spread.
I'm sure if everyone had the self discipline to behave sensibly then lockdown would indeed be unnecessary, but have you seen them out there?
Arte et Marte
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,865
Weird Granny Slater wrote:I agree with posts 9, 14, 22, 26, 30, 31, 36, 37, 45, 50, 53 and 55. Oh, and 58.
How sad.
Sometimes I wonder how those I mentioned earlier in #54 if would be as carefree in their behaviour if this virus left them visibly and permanently disabled or with nasty scars.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Weird Granny Slater- Location: Dover
- Registered: 7 Jun 2017
- Posts: 3,061
Well, merely 'calling for the lockdown' wouldn't have had any effect on the 'spread' at all. Physical distancing 'might have possibly' had an effect, but 'might have possibly' isn't very conclusive is it? But if it were so, that rather buttresses the argument that, as infections were already falling, 'lockdown' was redundant as a public health excuse.
But, really, it's for the government (or any 'lockdown' advocate who wishes to take up the challenge) to produce the evidence to prove that 'lockdowns' work (and to define what to 'work' would mean). It has never done so, but merely repeated the assertion that they do often enough that most people are shocked that anyone should actually question the orthodoxy.
'Pass the cow dung, my dropsy's killing me' - Heraclitus
